The historical task set forth by the Communist Party of China for the present era is to lead the peasants and workers to develop Marxism with Chinese characteristics and Scientific Outlook. So, the Party’s ideological education and especially the education of princelings must not take place at Harvard, Stanford or Oxford, where this Burmese woman Suu Kyi was given a doctorate. Instead lofty ideals and belief must take as the core content the education of the whole party in steadfastly and unflinchingly adhering to socialism with Chinese characteristics. The CPC is the vanguard and the faithful representative of the interests of the Chinese Peasants and Workers.
Down with Imperialist Paper Tigers like the Dehli Llama and the Rangoon Lassy who support Corrupt Western Corporate Institutions.
Long Live the Peasants and Workers of China and Burma!
The East (including Chongqing and Mandalay) is Red!

So criticisms are regularly flung at the Dalai Lama and Beijing from both sides, but have anyone ever bothered thinking about the opinions of actual Tibetan residence (including perhaps, the vast Han migrant population) are?

The Chinese Government has, over several decades, spent much time, money and efforts to address the issues of the minorities in China, including (and more particularly) the Tibetans. The Tibetans appreciate the efforts made by the Government in promoting the different aspects of their lives - economic, social, cultural and religious.
As for the other ethnic groups in China, including the Hans, they do not wish that the territory of China is divided.
The only people who wish a desintegration of China are the few thousands Tibetans who had fled China and are now living in foreign countries and some of the western countries.
The Tibetans in exile are like the French aristocrats who fled France just after the revolution in 1789 and took refuge in England. They spent their time vilifying the French Government and even fought France as part of the armies of Austria, England, etc. But they could not change the course of history. Similarly, the Tibetans in exile are spending their time villifying the Chinese Government and organise terrorist attacks. Like the French aristocrats, their designs are bound to fail. As for the western countries, they are jealous and would do anything to stop the inexorable progress of China.
Like the French aristocrats, the Tibetans in exile live like parasites in the countries that have offered them shelter. Instead of working, they spend their time spreading false news and rumours and expect other people to feed them. Indeed, they spend more time organising demonstrations and participating in these demonstrations than working. In one of the capitals of the western countries, whenever there is a demonstration, the local people usually say that it must be the Tibetans.

JM: nobody believes the revisionist recent history you recite here. This is the some old CCP line that is so plainly false and one sided. The CCP does not survey public opinion or care what the Tibetans think. If they cared what Tibetan thought, the CCP and its Army would be sent packing from Tibet today.

Why are there so many troops stationed around Tibetan towns in Eastern Tibet, Sichuan...certainly it isn't because of India. And, why does the CCP force the monasteries in Tibet to place the Chinese flag at the top? And why do the Chinese control the monasteries? Why are the nomads being forced to resettle? Why do Tibetans need permission to travel from place to place? Why are there still on-going Tibetan protests across all of Tibet? The list of questions regarding Tibetans' wants in Tibet is endless and the only answer from the Chinese is the boot.

This is why the Chinese models for politics, law, and civil society are not exportable and such policies are doomed to fail beyond China's borders. Nobody likes the Chinese because of these things. They only want China's money. But, increasingly, western countries and businesses are unhappy and dissatisfied in their relations with China.

John feels Good,
When you writes "Nobody believes the revisionist recent history you recite here.", I believe you do not realise that you are speaking on behalf of the entire World. Yet you accused me of speaking on behalf of the entire World!
Never mind, I know that you have a very poor intellect and you are unable to understand anything, least of all economics, politics, sociology and history.
The only thing you seem to know is to repeat your holiness thousands of times per day like a talking parrot and you do not even understand the meaning of holiness.
I am not blaming you since you were born stupid.
China does not wish to export its politics or law or civil society to other people. The US wants to export its democracy to other countries and in the process it has murdered and tortured millions of people.
China simply wish to develop its country and to help other countries to develop. I know this concept is way above your head. So I will not elaborate.

By the "opinions of Tibetans", do you mean the opinions of the few thousands Tibetans who have been living outside China for the last fifty years or who have never lived in China because they were born in a foreign country and who do not the current conditions in China now, or do you mean the six million Tibetans who are currently in China?

I think better questions are to ask the Chinese supporters for their evidence that His Holiness the Dalai Lama is a terrorist, a liar, a thief, etc. You have seen no evidence supporting any of these claims.

Since you keep chanting "your holiness" all day and all night long, no wonder you know nothing else.
So, stop chanting "your holiness" and open your mind a little bit if you can. I know this would be very difficult for you, but this is the only way to know what is going on in the world.

First, the exiles are not residents of China and they are not citizens of China. Anyway, there are around 150,000 Tibetans living outside China as opposed to six million Tibetans living in china. this means that the Tibetans in exile represent 2.5% of all the Tibetans.
Second, almost all the Tibetans who are residents in China approve the actions of the Chinese Government and do not want any change. The Government of China is in constant contact with the Tibetans in China and constantly seek their opinions and approval on all matters related to the Tibet Region and the other provinces where they live.
It is true that you don't know it being so ignorant; but the Chinese Authorities do seek the opinions and approval of the population.

So, even if you are not a citizen and a resident of the UK, yet you should be granted the right to vote for the UK MPs. Tell that to the UK. I am sure they will accept your argument. Tell this to your 10 years old kid. He will certainly agree with you. But do not tell it to grown-up people. They will laugh at you.
So, since 2.5% is higher than 0%, then it means the majority. Same thing as above.

Go tell the US government to hold a referendum in which all the natives above 18 years of all can vote and choose between staying in the nation-state of the US or getting independence and the return of the lands that were stolen from them. You will then get your answer.

Minority,
In how many countries is one allowed to vote when he is not a citizen of that country?
In how many countries is one allow to stand as candidate for a public office when he is not a citizen of that country?
In which World do you live in when 2.5% is considered a majority?
Who do you think you are who can state as a fact that the Chinese Government considers the views of less than 2.5%?

"So, even if you are not a citizen and a resident of the UK, yet you should be granted the right to vote for the UK MPs."

Yes, I am a Commonwealth citizen and eligible to vote in Parliamentary elections and Scottish elections. Same rights for Irish citizen.

Also, ALL RESIDENTS are eligible to vote in local elections in the UK.

"Go tell the US government to hold a referendum in which all the natives above 18 years of all can vote and choose between staying in the nation-state of the US or getting independence and the return of the lands that were stolen from them. You will then get your answer."

They are free to do so. For example, the Scots are free to hold an independence referendum, and the Quebecois have done so twice.

"So, you know for a fact that Beijing will ask the opinions of a few people in Tibet (probably smaller than 2.5%) and consider that a consensus."

I don't know this. In fact, I admitted I was ignorant. You need to do the same.

"In how many countries is one allowed to vote when he is not a citizen of that country?"

Plenty of European ones, including the UK.

"In how many countries is one allow to stand as candidate for a public office when he is not a citizen of that country?"

I don't know. Does this matter?

"In which World do you live in when 2.5% is considered a majority?"

I never considered it a majority. Like I said right from the start, many hours ago in my first comment to which you replied without reading, have anyone ever bothered thinking about the opinions of actual Tibetan residence (including perhaps, the vast Han migrant population) are?

I always said, ask the Tibetans, 6million in Tibet, and those born in Tibet but no longer resident there.

"Who do you think you are who can state as a fact that the Chinese Government considers the views of less than 2.5%?"

Minority, you wrote: "Also, need to add, residents are also eligible to vote in the Scottish independence referendum."
________________________________________
Since the non-Tibetan Chinese, including the Hans, are residents of China, do you mean that they should also be allowed to vote in the election?

minority, you wrote: "It is vital to remember that a stakeholder does not necessarily need to be a citizen."
_________________________
Really stupid! I have a bank account in a scottish bank and I have shares in a few scottish companies too. I am therefore a stakeholder, though I am not a citizen nor a resident. According to your stupid argument, I should be able to vote. And there are millions other people like me.

You also wrote: "A Tibetan born and bred in Tibet, who chooses to leave Tibet is still a stakeholder in the future of Tibet, even if he does not have Chinese citizenship."

This aregument is even more stupid. There are 1.35 billion inhabitants in China. They are not only stakeholders but citizens of China too. I do not think that a few thousand Tibetans in exile will stand any chance against 1.35 billion Chinese citizens.

"Since the non-Tibetan Chinese, including the Hans, are residents of China, do you mean that they should also be allowed to vote in the election?"

This is the 4th time I'm repeating this. Yes. Read what I said.

"The Tibetans in exile are not residents of China. They therefore have no right to vote in anything connected with China."

They were born and raised in Tibet. They are stakeholders in Tibet. A resident of China who spent his entire life in Shenzhen has no right to vote on Tibet because he's not a stakeholder in Tibet, but a Tibetan-in-exile does.

This is about stakeholders, which includes not just Tibetan residents.

"Really stupid! I have a bank account in a scottish bank and I have shares in a few scottish companies too. I am therefore a stakeholder, though I am not a citizen nor a resident. According to your stupid argument, I should be able to vote. And there are millions other people like me."

Nope, according to my argument, you SHOULD NOT be able to vote.

You are not a stakeholder.

For example, I am a resident of Edinburgh, I have a stake in the way the city is run, despite not being a UK citizen. Therefore, it is right that I can vote in local elections, which I can.

Many of the Tibetans in exile have spent decades in Tibet, they are stakeholders in the future of Tibet.

Just as the Chinese citiziens who left China when they were 18 to pursue a degree overseas. They may have spent 10 years abroad, but they are still stakeholders.

So, how about we define stakeholder and someone having lived in Tibet for 20 years? Or someone who was born in Tibet to Tibetan residents?

"This aregument is even more stupid. There are 1.35 billion inhabitants in China. They are not only stakeholders but citizens of China too. I do not think that a few thousand Tibetans in exile will stand any chance against 1.35 billion Chinese citizens."

Not all 1.35billion are stakeholders in Tibet. Most don't speak the language, nor have ever stayed in Tibet. They are not stakeholders. If the exiles cannot vote, then the residents of Shanghai or Beijing cannot vote in Tibetan referendums either.

There are 2.5 million inhabitants in the region of Tibet and 3.5 million Tibetans who live in China but outside the Tibet region. Should they be allowed to vote?
There are also more than 5 million half-blood Tibetans who are not residents of the Tibet region and another 50 million whose ancestors were Tibetan? Should they be given the right to vote?
An inhabitant of Shenzen or of Beijing is more a stakeholder in anything that touches the Tibet region than a non-resident of China and a non-resident of China.

Do make an effort to read what I've said, so that you actually reply to what I've said instead of what you thought I said.

"Of the 150,000 Tibetans in exile, 50% were born in foreign countries. Many of them do not speak Tibetans. They speak the language of their country of adoption."

To that, I said:
"So, how about we define stakeholder and someone having lived in Tibet for 20 years? Or someone who was born in Tibet to Tibetan residents?"

You said:
"An inhabitant of Shenzen or of Beijing is more a stakeholder in anything that touches the Tibet region than a non-resident of China and a non-resident of China."

You're using a circular argument. Google "petitio principia". That will change your life.

Your circular argument goes like this:
- China residents are stakeholders in Tibet because Tibet is China because
- China residents, as stakeholders in Tibet, decided Tibet is part of China and therefore
- China residents are stakeholders in Tibet because Tibet is China because
- China residents, as stakeholders in Tibet, decided Tibet is part of China and therefore- China residents are stakeholders in Tibet because Tibet is China because
- China residents, as stakeholders in Tibet, decided Tibet is part of China and therefore- China residents are stakeholders in Tibet because Tibet is China because
- China residents, as stakeholders in Tibet, decided Tibet is part of China and therefore- China residents are stakeholders in Tibet because Tibet is China because
- China residents, as stakeholders in Tibet, decided Tibet is part of China and therefore- China residents are stakeholders in Tibet because Tibet is China because
- China residents, as stakeholders in Tibet, decided Tibet is part of China and therefore- China residents are stakeholders in Tibet because Tibet is China because
- China residents, as stakeholders in Tibet, decided Tibet is part of China and therefore

So you're using a circular argument to justify yourself. It's a logical fallacy and it's called "petitio principia"

The problem with the naive and stupid western people like you is that after they have met and listened to a couple of Tibetans in exile, they think they have met and listened to all the Tibetans. They do not realise how many Tibetans there are actually.
Second, they do not know that, except for the Tibetans in exile, all the other Tibetans are Chinese and are proud of their country.
Third, the naive and stupid western people think that they have the right to think and to take decisions for the 1.35 billion citizens of China.
Fourth, they know that they should decide who are the stakeholders in an issue that concern all the Chinese population. According to them, the only stakeholders are the few thousand Tibetans who are not residents of the Tibet region and are not even residents of China, but simply because they want it to be so.

You're completely right. The question is who decides the criteria, that there should be a referendum is the best way to achieve legitimacy.

I think Beijing should decide. At least in this way, the criteria in which Beijing polls public opinion will be transparent and known, such that the Chinese citizenry (including Tibetans) can have a public debate.

The current situation is one where the government in Beijing can make a claim of having support of the local populace, but how they have come to this conclusion is not known. Having Beijing decide a criteria for a referendum opens this.

Just out of interest, re your points about the American civil war:
1) They did have the right and were in fact independent for a few years. It is merely the northerners having managed to suppress those rights (in the same way many states, China and the US included, suppress self-determination, which is what I disagree with).

2) Lincoln declared it was for the South. But had he not won the war, it would have no effect in the South. In the same way, the Dalai Lama can make declarations on Tibet, but it will have no effect.

3) Indeed, quite shameful.

The question is, should China follow the wrong actions of the American past? No.

"The problem with the naive and stupid western people like you is that after they have met and listened to a couple of Tibetans in exile, they think they have met and listened to all the Tibetans. They do not realise how many Tibetans there are actually."

I'm an ethnically Chinese Asian and I'm fully aware of Tibetans living in Tibet. Been there, after all.

China's done great things, like poverty alleviation and frankly, is an economic bulwark for the world. But the lack of self-determination could do with some fixing.

"Second, they do not know that, except for the Tibetans in exile, all the other Tibetans are Chinese and are proud of their country."

It's great that you know what all the 6million Tibetans think (including the ones too young to speak, no doubt). Could you publish your wonderful survey data for all to see?

"Third, the naive and stupid western people think that they have the right to think and to take decisions for the 1.35 billion citizens of China."

Don't know who you're talking about, but I believe the 6million Tibetans have should decide what happens to Tibet. They didn't after all, have a choice, when the People's Liberation Army marched in.

"Fourth, they know that they should decide who are the stakeholders in an issue that concern all the Chinese population. According to them, the only stakeholders are the few thousand Tibetans who are not residents of the Tibet region and are not even residents of China, but simply because they want it to be so."

I always believed the Tibetan residents (including the Han migrants) should have a say, as I mentioned in the first comment you didn't read. We're in agreement then! :)

"Since you are so stupid, you do not understand that your views and opinions are worth nothing."

"I think Beijing should decide. At least in this way, the criteria in which Beijing polls public opinion will be transparent and known, such that the Chinese citizenry (including Tibetans) can have a public debate."

You have made a wrong choice. Because as far as the commies are concerned, the decision for Tibet Sovereignty has been long made for them, by history.

"The current situation is one where the government in Beijing can make a claim of having support of the local populace, but how they have come to this conclusion is not known. Having Beijing decide a criteria for a referendum opens this."

PRC has rarely, if not never, used referendum to collect public opinions. The People's Government clearly has better political tools than simple referendum.

"Just out of interest, re your points about the American civil war:
1) They did have the right and were in fact independent for a few years. It is merely the northerners having managed to suppress those rights (in the same way many states, China and the US included, suppress self-determination, which is what I disagree with)."

Right is a legal or moral claim. Clearly it was neither legal nor moral for the south to secede from the Union in order to protect the slavery.

"2) Lincoln declared it was for the South. But had he not won the war, it would have no effect in the South. In the same way, the Dalai Lama can make declarations on Tibet, but it will have no effect."

Seasoned lamaists have never asked me to explain the meaning and the using of the "CIA Bazooka Liar Lama". They don't want to be embarrassed.

"CIA Bazooka Liar Lama" connects important points of the 14th Dalai Lama's life, tells a very different, and far more complete story that the 99% in the west are not entitled to know. The tile is far more appropriate than "His Holiness".

"CIA Bazooka" part of the title is from an incident in 50's, when he scoffed two CIA-trained Tibetan guerrillas for not loading CIA-supplied Bazooka fast enough, while he was still a deputy chairman of Communist China's People's Congress and the head of Tibet local governement:

In 1958, the Dalai Lama was clinging to power in Tibet as Chinese communism closed in. That is when the religious leader says he first heard that the Central Intelligence Agency was stepping up its involvement in Tibet. The Dalai Lama's lord chamberlain introduced two CIA-trained Tibetan guerrillas and asked them to demonstrate their skills. The warriors pulled out a bazooka, fired it, then took 15 minutes to reload before they fired again. "I said, 'Will you shoot once and then ask the enemy to wait 15 minutes?' " the Dalai Lama recalls, chuckling. "Impossible." But his lord chamberlain was enthusiastic. Freedom fighters were already battling China's military, and they had direct radio communications with the CIA, said the aide. "They gave the impression that once I arrived in India, great support would come from the United States," the Dalai Lama told NEWSWEEK, shaking his head. "It's a sad, sad story." -- Newsweek

Indeed Dalai's force, 2,100 strong, armed and financed by CIA, waged war against China until the early 70's. The force was disbanded by Dalai Lama only after CIA withdrew the supports and Nepali military was mobilized to disarm the lamaists.

"Liar Lama" part of his title was suitable not only he has been lying and manipulating all the time, but also he lied, with contempt to the world, on one of the most respected western podium.

Dalai Lama was deeply involved in the guerrilla war against China, nevertheless Dalai Lama lied in his 1989 nobel peace prize acceptance speech, when he said "..., our struggle must REMAIN nonviolent and free of hatred."

Dalai's collaboration with CIA, and his guerrilla war against China were not revealed until after CIA declassified some relevant documents in late 90's.

The tile "CIA Bazooka Liar Lama" not only exposes the pretense and hypocrisy of the lamaists, but also reveals a history that is too political damaging for the western establishment to discuss further.

I hope the naive and stupid supporters of the Dalai Lama, including the various western journalists who use to write nonsense, have read your post.
One day, I shall expose the role of The Dalai Lama as the terrorist leader who orchestrated the cowardly attack in China in 2008. He is to China what Bin Laden is to the US. Yet, though the CIA has stopped funding his guerilla activities, he is still receiving funds from the US Government for his other activities. His activities will end when the US will stop supporting him financially just like his guerilla activities were stopped when financial support was cut off.
He should also be exposed in his role as the organiser of the self-immolation campaign, which resulted in the death of around 30 monks. And when he saw that this campaign was heading nowhere, he had to abandon it.

China have as much right to rule Tibet , as the Europeans-Brazilians to rule Brazil

(1) Tibet became a part of China in 1276 under the YUAN Dynasty--- whereby the Emperor coined the title "Dalai Lama" and appointed the first one

(2) American Historians studies showed that under Ming Dynasty and Qing Dynasty ---China had maintained sovereignty over Tibet

(3) Catholic missionaries (the Capuchin Order) based in Lhasa in 1760 wrote and described how the Dalai Lama sent SOS to the Chinese Emperor to send troops to defend Lhasa against attacks by the Dzungar Mongols

(4) These Catholic missionaries also wrote to describe how China structured the Administrative Provincial Government of the Chinese province of Tibet

(5) All Catholic Missionaries wishing to enter Tibet must first obtain their entry-visas from the Chinese Govt Viceroy in Szechuan

(6) The official British Govt trade Mission to Tibet in 1780 was informed by the Dalai Lama in Tibet that Tibet was a Chinese province and that they must first get permission from Beijing before they could trade with Tibet

(7) The British signed the Anglo-China Protocol in Beijing in 1860 ---agreeing to seek China's permission on Tibet

(8) All the Tibetan Buddhism Religious Sects preaches that Tibet is a Province of China

(9) The Tibetan Buddhism religion believe that the Chinese Emperor is the re-incarnation of the Mansjuri Boddhivattsa in his earthy throne

All the nations of the World recognises that China have the sovereignty over Tibet

Please check whether your Brazil recognises that Tibet is a part of China

The Dalai Lama himself had announced many times that "Tibet is a part of China"

This is a stupid question. There are British troops in Englang. There are French troops in France. There are Indian troops in India. What is unusual in having Chinese troops in China? There are Chinese troops in each and every province and territory of China including, Hong kong, Shandong, Tibet, Guangdong, etc.
The Tibetans in China have no objections. Only the few thousand Tibetan terrorists who live outside China object to what the Chinese Government does, just like the AlQuaeda terrorists object to what the US Government does and just like the Basque terrorists object to what the Spanish Government does.

This is a stupid question. There are British troops in Englang. There are French troops in France. There are Indian troops in India. What is unusual in having Chinese troops in China? There are Chinese troops in each and every province and territory of China including, Hong kong, Shandong, Tibet, Guangdong, etc.
The Tibetans in China have no objections. Only the few thousand Tibetan terrorists who live outside China object to what the Chinese Government does, just like the AlQuaeda terrorists object to what the US Government does and just like the Basque terrorists object to what the Spanish Government does.

This is why nobody really likes the Chinese system. In democracies around the world, people disagree but they listen and respect the other person. But in the Chinese system, if a person disagrees, they call them stupid. The next step is to beat them up, put them in jail, or send the to RTL because they are so stupid. This is why the Chinese system is not exportable and can not succeed outside of China.

1. - Tibet became part of the MONGOL empire in 1276, which also happened to conquer China. The title was coined in 1578 by the MONGOL ruler Altan Khan on Sonam Gyatso, the third Dalai Lama, actually (it was retrospectively applied to two of his predecessors).

2. China did not have any authority, real or ceremonial, over Tibet during the Ming Dynasty. MONGOLS, on the other hand had great influence over the region and often meddled in Tibetan affairs (it was at that time that Althan Khan bestowed the Dalai Lama title on the head of the Gelugpa sect). Tibet, however was sovereign and independent throughout that period.

3. In 1720 the Dalai Lama sent an SOS to the MANCHU Emperor to send troops to defend Lhasa against attacks by the Dzungar Mongols. Manchus, much like their Mongol cousins and unlike Han Chinese had close relationships with Tibetans, since Tibetan Buddhism was widespread in the northern steppes. Tibet became part of the MANCHU Empire, just like Mongolia and Xinjiang, but all these regions were kept wisely separated from China proper. Tibet paid homage to the Qing emperor, but the Dalai Lama ruled Tibet with little to no interference from Beijing.

4. All Religious Sects in China are under the firm control of the CCP. They preach what they're told to. Ask any Tibetan Buddhist monk outside China what he truly believes. You may be shocked.

5. There are no more emperors sitting on the Dragon Throne. But maybe you believe Hu Jintao is the reincarnation of Mansjuri. Go figure.

So, yes, Tibet is a part of China, but it has only been directly ruled by Chinese since its invasion in 1950 by the PLA, and much against the will of its population, something that will always cast a serious doubt over the legitimacy of China's rule, for true sovereignty can only reside in the people.

Actually Tibet is a part of Mongolia, and since Mongolia is too weak to rule it at the moment, China is the temporary caretaker government. Once Ghengis Khan is resurrected from his death, he will rebuild the Mongol empire and reclaim Tibet and China as his own.

In terms of legality, morality and whatever democratic principles you can subscribe to, a tiny minority of Tibetan exiles (150K or so) can in no way have more rights than the other 90% of Free Tibetans, who have been free for the last 50 years. The slave owning elites of the old Tibet (i.e. the monks and nobility represented by the Dalai Lama) have been totally rejected by the majority free Tibetans, who won their freedom with the help of the rest of China.

The problem with the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan exiles is that they are calling for a return to the old Tibet with institutionalised
slavery and a theocracy that have no place in the modern world.

Also, to infer that the native tribes of the Americas can be wantonly exterminated without so much as an after thought, because they are few in numbers or less developed, compared to Tibetans is totally illogical and inhumane. Genocide is still genocide!

In most countries like the USA, the UK and China as well, security forces and the police are usually out in the streets and are quite visible, for the simple purpose of protecting the peace, lifes and property. You only need to strol1 around London, New York or Hong Kong to notice the visible presence of police and SWAT teams everywhere. In Tibet, the presence of police and security forces is even more necessary to protect the peace, especially since the Tibetan Exiles are often very violent and are quite capable of committing terrorist acts.
"Freedom" to the Dalai Lama and the Tibet Exiles means the opposite to what most people understand it to be. In the vocabulary of the Dalai Lama and Tibetan Exiles, it actually means the "Freedom" to enslave other Tibetans, to commit terrorist acts, to encourage misguided monks and nuns to commit suicide by self immolation. Nobody will stand for that!

"Go to Tibet. See the Chinese soldiers patrolling 24/7 the Barkhor. See the checkpoints. See the cameras in the monasteries. See the resentment in people's faces. Then talk about "freedom"."

I've been to Tibet. I've noticed that there was police presence. I imagine that after the March 2008 riots that police presence have got a lot heavier. But I also thought it made sense. What should the authorities have done? Leave things be? I think this sort of illustrates the problem with the exiled community attitudes. They want to eat their cake and have it too. For instance, activism seems to emanate from the temples, so the authorities scrutinise the temples, some say too instrusively. Anyway, this makes sense to me. I'm not saying that people don't have a right to protest but when the protests turn into riots and turn violent, um... may be the police should do their jobs and restore law and order. Unless you believe that the rioters shoud be left alone to do their thing?

Perhaps the methods they use is not the most sophisticated. THey could use kid gloves, perhaps. In fact, a few of the "activists" can be turned if the police treat them well or at least much better than their expectations.

The failure of Chinese policy, as told to me by people like you, in Tibet seems to be that they cannot separate the bad eggs from ordinary Tibetans. So long as the whole population feels under scrutiny, the tensions will not ease. IN that sense the "activists" are successful because they blend into the ordinary civilian population too well. It's time the police use much better methods.

Those are not policemen, Daveycool, those are soldiers. You don't have soldiers patrolling the center of London, New York or Hong Kong. Neither you do in Beijing or Shanghai. No checkpoints or snipers on rooftops there, either. Trying to portrait this as something normal and usual is just a serious case of self-deceit. Blaming this on "exiles" is also the usual excuse from repressive regimes, justifying their abhorrent practices on some shady external threat. We've seen it all before. It's just hiding your head in the sand. Anyone who's been to Tibet can tell Tibetans resent Chinese rule, and Han Chinese deeply distrust Tibetans in general, not just exiles thousands of miles away. The only impression an objective observer can get after a visit to Tibet is that of a land under belligrent occupation.

Restoring order is the task of any Security force, but it is the task of any government to address the root causes that motivate the recurrent riots that threaten that order. The failure of Chinese policy is this, and not just not being able to efficiently repress those "bad eggs". As long as Tibetans feel occupied by an arrogant foreign power there will be "rotten eggs" and there will be protests, unrest and desperate actions from desperate Tibetans.

"You don't have soldiers patrolling the center of London, New York or Hong Kong."

If I was running the country and I am just trying to keep order right during a riot, I'd care less what branch of my uniformed services will do the law and order thing. I'd just declare martial law (I think they did that back in '08) and put boots on the ground. Who cares what London, New York, or HK does? They're girlie when it comes to this sort of thing. Like I said, if the rioters were really concerned about the consequence of their actions they'd know that this was going to be a possible outcome. But maybe this was what they wanted: to create a resentment among Tibetans and Hans.

But I think that the Free Tibet crowd vastly over-estimates their own importance and their ability to influence events. In short they are deluded. They thought that the Beijing Olympics was a good chance for them to win something by rioting. That was such a serious miscalculation that the blowback was so fast and furious they are now crying mother. When they are lucid, they call Beijing a dictatorial, authoritarian (sometimes even totalitarian) government. What made them think that they can expect an invitation to tea after they rioted?

So they think this would happen in Beijing:

Hu Jintao would say, "Oh my goodness gracious me, the Tibetans are rioting again. They are killing people and burning a few shops... hmmm... very naughty, let's invite them over for some tea and crumpets and talk this over now. They'll surely listen, those sprirtual beings."

Wen Jiabao, "let's do that! I hear they love yak butter tea, so let's have that instead."

Absurd, right? They want a revolt they should do one with enough balls, not one that runs back to its Gandhi-esque BS persona. They don't get to stab someone and accuse the authorities of being brutal when they get caught.

That said, Beijing has a lot of work to do to win over ordinary Tibetans. The bad eggs are rotten. They can't be saved and they should be watched. But Beijing isn't doing themselves a favour by creating an atmosphere of blanket restrictions. The least they can do is to allow lots of individual freedom for ordinary Tibetans but keep an eye on those troublesome monks. In fact, Beijing can have Free Tibet eliminated if they remove a source of resentment amongst ordinary Tibetans. This part is up to Beijing.

If you don't know the fundamental difference between the role of the police and that of the army, you are more hopeless than I thought. Beijing is not just trying to "keep law and order" in Tibet, but also to keep a population that openly and recurrently rejects its rule on a short leash. That is why you don't see soldiers in London, but you see them in East Jerusalem.

"Activists" and "troublesome monks" are the symptom of the fundamental ill of Chinese rule over a population that does not consider itself Chinese. Looking at them as the problem is like the proverbial fool who looks at the finger pointing at the moon.

Soldiers were on the alert at the last rioting in London last year. They did not intervene because it was not necessary;p but if the situation has worsened, British soldiers were ready to step in.
This being said, each country has its own ways of dealing with different situations. When the NATO countries did not like Quaddafi, they sent their planes and dropped their bombs on Libya and killed 40,000 Libyans. This is murder on a grand scale. Because they did not like the President of Iraq, they sent their troops by the hundreds of thousands to kill and torture hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.
Activists and troublesome people exist in every country. Only naive people like you think that they exist only in China. The "Occupy Movement" activists claim that they re4present 99% of the population. Is it a symptom of a fundamental ill of the US rule. There are also activists and troublesome elements in the UK, France, Russia, Turkey, etc. Are the governments of these countries looking at them as the problem? Are they like the proverbial fool who look at the finger pointing at the moon?In fact, a country without any troublesome people is indeed an exception rather than a rule. Why don't you open your eyes and minds a little bit and look beyond the borders of China? If you did that, you would make more sensible comments.

Have you ever been to Tiber?If not,how can you know that Chinese soldiers patrolling 24/7 the Barkhor?By say that,I do not mean that the data is wrong,but we all know that there are always negative reports about China and many of them are made up.So how can we just say Tibetans are not free by so unauthentic data

Yes, I've been to Tibet, but that's not the only way to know about military presence in Lhasa's streets. It's pretty much common knowledge. Look around the Internet and you will get some useful info about this conflict. But by all means, if you can, go and see it by yourself. You'll still be shocked.

I hope you see the irony in comparing US military presence in Iraq and that of China in Tibet. Tibetans must feel the same as Iraqis about the criminal invasion and occupation of their homeland.

The military is very fit for occupying foreign lands and repressing their local population into submission. For regular protesters at home, police is the tool of choice.

I see perfectly the ills that motivate the Occupy Movement (and the Arab Spring, and the Indignados in Spain, and the rioters in Greece...), and I very much sympathize with all of them. Now: do you see the ills that motivate riots and self-immolations in Tibet? Hint: it's not the CIA nor "wolves in sheep skins". Think hard.

There is no irony. The Chinese troops are in their own country. There are Chinese soldiers in each and every province and region of China. There are Chinese soldiers in Guangdong, Zhejiang, Hong Kong, Tibet, Xinjiang, Sichuan, etc
On the other hand, the US troops are in a foreign country, Iraq, and they have killed hundreds of thousand of Iraqis.
You still have to grow up though it seems it will be a long and arduous process.

"If you don't know the fundamental difference between the role of the police and that of the army, you are more hopeless than I thought."

I was actually quite put off by this comment. You have this better than thou attitude towards anyone who has ever spoken out in disgreement with you on Beijing's policies. Don't attack the person.

OK let's humour you for a second. Explain to me, a hopeless person, what difference it makes who enforces the law and order? Mind you this was not the United States we're talking about. You people always talk about protest rights and all as if Beijing should abide by rules you imagined you should enjoy. All I'm saying is that the fundamental failure of Tibetans doing the protests is to think that they are protected by US or UK laws. Don't BS yourselves. Beijing doesn't give a f*ck to those things. And why does it matter? The reality is on Tibetan matters what Beijing thinks matter orders of magnitudes more than what Washington or London thinks. But the Free Tibet crowd continues to be deluded basically by saying, "oh the West thinks soldiers and policemen are different". And this should be making Beijing rethink their enforcement? Come on. There is a bridge in Brooklyn I wanna sell ya.

""Activists" and "troublesome monks" are the symptom of the fundamental ill of Chinese rule "

I disagree. Years ago, an American paediatrician complained to me about a social worker whose main job it was to ensure that she (the social worker) advocated for children who were abused. In the end, she called the paediatrician twice or more times a day and sometimes got hostile wondering how the doctor had no one to report. It got so bad that the doctor considered reporting every single accident, bruise, or anything even remotely like an abuse jsut to get that social worker off his phone. These monks, at least a good number of them, seem to me to be behaving like that social worker. They find a problem in everything that Beijing does even if the evil intent is absent. Why do I think that? Because they complain against things that normal humans would consider good things. Tibetans aren't different from humans. Only their monks are. Unfortunately they listen to these monks who (many fo them) don't have useful skills beyond chantings and melting ice with their body heat.

This petty issue of the right for China to govern Tibet greatly diminishes the moral stature of China all over the Globe. China inherited the Manchu Empire as the USSR inherited Czarist Russia, but even bloodthirst and paranoid tyrants like Lenin and Stalin let Finland to go away. Even these tyrants created a legal framework allowing for ethnically well-defined republics to detach themselves from the Union. A great leader was needed for that right to become reality. Both the great leader and the legal framework are missing in China. Saying that the Tibet nation is akin to those nations, each with a few thousand native peoples and living in the Amazon jungle or in the North American prairies, or with the highly-developed but hetrogeneous Andean peoples, is to miss the point. None of the American societies conquered by the Europeans had the size, the political stability, the history and the cultural homogeneity of Tibet. Besides that, these are no more times for Spanish "Conquistadores" like Cortez and Pizarro, for Brazilian slave-seeking "bandeirantes" and for the North American and Argentinian native exterminators of XIX century. There is no more right today (at least not openly) to conquer a nation. At Mongol and Manchu times there was that right.
The trouble when one is based on the Manchu Empire frontiers is that they include several other regions, conquered by Russia, Britain, France and Japan, but all of them now (except for the Russian Northern Manchuria) part of independent nations.

What is the right of the US government to govern the US? The US was initially populated by the natives. The Europeans came, killed most of them and stole all their lands. What is the moral stature of the US all over the globe? Give back to the natives all their lands.
The same goes for Australia and Canada and the South American countries.

I take exception with your use of "moral stature" which is often used by the Free Tibet propagandists to demonize China.

The fact is every inch of Chinese land was conquered (grabbed). It does not make China the nation less moral than any other country because every inch of every other country's land was conquered (grabbed).

Take Tibet, for example. Was its previous kingdom established by any "moral" means, e.g. praying? Of course not.

The sad truth is that nations do not have "morals". They never had and they never will.

The Chinese have no right to criticize any western countries in this regard. Chinese governments and dynasties have always changed through violent conquest and over-throw. This is how China rules itself...the masses in China have always risen up to overthrow oppressive dynasties. Or, other, non-Han ethnic group conquered the Han. This has happened many times. The worst of these internal struggles in China was only 50 years ago when Mao and his followers killed 30-40 million Chinese by way of the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution.

China is in no position to lecture the West about these things. China perpetrated the largest genocide in the history of the world only 50 years ago.

So John, according to your definition and genocide of "Killing 30-40 million Chinese", which means indirect starvation due to bad policies, then what are you doing at this very moment to help and stop the "Killing" and "Genocide" happening every year in India?? I am not even going to mention Africa.
The Indian government have 'killed' over 100 million people in India and are still 'Killing' more than 5 million every year.

[John the reply to Jean 24th, 15:53
The Chinese have no right to criticize any western countries in this regard. Chinese governments and dynasties have always changed through violent conquest and over-throw. This is how China rules itself...the masses in China have always risen up to overthrow oppressive dynasties.Or, other, non-Han ethnic group conquered the Han. This has happened many times. The worst of these internal struggles in China was only 50 years ago when Mao and his followers killed 30-40 million Chinese by way of the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution.

China is in no position to lecture the West about these things. China perpetrated the largest genocide in the history of the world only 50 years ago.]

It is the whites who perpetrated the largest genocide in the history of the world and it is a RACIAL genocide:

{
Gambling on nation-buildingApril 10th, 18:51
Mathmatically, the whites in usa were responsible for the death of 200 million people, and total genocide of over a hundred nations. Stalin was second rate, and Hitler a rank amature, who could not even exterminate a single nationality.

Of course, all 3 must collect their prizes in hell.

On the other hand, most Americans are friendly, which makes the comparison even more stark, between ideals of the masses and actions in them induced.

Gambling on nation-buildingApril 8th, 15:57

Ad hominum attacks do not detract from the validity of the statements offered in good faith, and in my opinion should be avoided in dignified discourse.

I do not drind or partake of coffee or other mood altering substances or practices, the worst of which seems to be television.

Of course I understand that there are many views on the issue of immigration and land disputes. I point out the views which should be considered, but are widely ignored, because they make us feel uncomfortable. Only if we understand an issue from all perspectives can we reach an informed opinion.

The USA (government) was worse than Hitler and Stalin combined, and we will likely continue to do irreparable damage until we realize our past sins.

Imagine that a group of armed men break into your house, helped by some visiting police. When you fight back, they start to kill your family, so you and some of your family flee the area, and are not allowed to return.

After living in the street for 60 years, a powerful neighbour suggests that a program negotiates a settlement. The armed men state that the bottom line is that they will let you live in your neighbour’s house. You state that you want your house back, and perhaps an apology for killing your children.

The negotiation software states that you should settle on reclaiming your garage.

Would you be in awe of the program and accept that?

Even if you accepted, that, would your children accept that?

But Game Theory can be used to manipulate a Game Theory Program.

So, knowing this, you start the program with the information that your bottom line is that you are paid one million dollars for every killed family member, torture and death for all the armed men, and their families, and an apology, hoping to just get your house back.

The armed men can figure out your strategy, so they state to the programmers that they want to kill you all, and all your relatives to stay in a concentration camp for another 500 years.

The result of the game theory program will be that you have to stay in the concentration camp for another 200 years, which is what might actually happen in real life.

Game theory will never be successful in such cases without wise impartial control of the input positions, and better yet, a world power defending justice, instead of perverting it.

I think that your optimism in game theory to avert wars is at best optimistic, at worst downright evil.

Tragically, the result of occupational wars is usually either a withdraw of the occupation army, as from Viet Nam after killing 10 percent of the population and destruction of the ecosystem, or an acceptance of the invasion, as in Japan where from time to time US Marines still rape children, or partial Genocide, as in the case of 127 nations that are in USA, or in Total Genocide, as in the over a hundred nations that no longer have a single living member (as actually decided by the US government rejecting treaty claims).

Ghandi would have had no success against Stalin, Hitler, or Jackson.

Would the Baltic be free if Putin had been President?

Results depends more on personalities than on negotiation strategies.

Unfortunately, baring divine intervention, Might makes “Right”, as far as history is concerned.

Those who win are revered, such as Alexander, Peter, and Charlemagne (who killed his victims even after they converted to Christianity).

Game theory has some worth in free market, meaning free choice areas. But to think that some program can be used to bring justice for those being killed (or worse) is naive.}

Too bad the British government didn't see fit to honor both Suu Kyi and the Dalai Lama in parliament. But China owns a part of you too. Poor, poor Julian Assange, really did sexually abuse women in Sweden, even if he is a hero for dissing the U.S. (Though some think it was a conspiracy since the stuff that came out on U.S. wasn't as bad as one would have hoped. And journalists mentioned our State Dept. and intelligence folks could write!) Sorry, too, no more torture in Guantanamo. Black sites, yes, but no torture. And a small article in the Guardian said Britain's army is downsizing to drones and small attack squads. But I'm sure you'll use them honorably, as always.

In any situation there can be several sides. Aung San Suu Kyi and the Dalai Lama meeting may be significant but they could also while obviously devout to their causes, have been a stumbling block for the welfare of the people they represent. As I have written on a number of occasions, "The Lady's" intransience and vow to get the generals when she is in power have forced them to hang on. Offer of a Truth and Reconcilliation Commission would possibly have freed Burma long ago. The Dalai Lama keeps rubbing the Chinese' noses in Tibet with absolutely no favourable outcome for that country's inhabitants. So while they are great figures on the world stage, could we please see what they have achieved for their constituents.

There you go with the ad hominem attacks again. You don't even try to discuss the issues.

When someone writes something you disagree with, all you ever do is launch a childish insult or tell the other person "he doesn't know what he's talking about" without providing any counterclaim and evidence to support that counterclaim whatsoever.

Is this what they teach you to do in those Burmese Buddhist Institutes?

And your suggestion for what kind of diplomacy could get Tibet the genuine autonomy which is all the Dalai Lama wants, is? There has been such an influx of Han and so much cultural and religious oppression what's the way out?

Well,Aung San Suu Kyi and her NLD won the national elections twice,once in 1990 and once in 2012,there should be little doubt who is the real government of Burma,the time for her to take up her legitimate role is getting pretty close now.

"Both must hope that China’s displeasure at their meeting will not impede the work that Miss Suu Kyi has ahead of her back home."

But it is far more important for His Holiness to poison the relationship between the lady and the Chinese government, and create new enemies for China. Otherwise it would be difficult to explain that the CIA Bazooka Liar Lama disclosed the private meeting on Twitter.

Also in our world of limited attention and resource, the lady's gain may well be at the monk's expense. The west may want to divert some resource, both political and financial, from the CIA Bazooka Liar Lama who has become an embarrassment, to the lady who has contemporary appeal and a realistic chance of succeeding in this modern world.

China is the one suffering from embarrassment - or should we say loss of face.

Let's be clear. China is intent on raping Myanmar (and so far doing a pretty good job of it) for its resources. China's invasion and occupation of Tibet show a similar callous selfishness.

Against a predator nation like China, with its vast military and political resources, 2 simple people get together to meet and share experiences.

How can that be anything but good?

To object or criticise is to countenance the incredibly immature Chinese behavior we so often see (in Taiwan, Xinjiang, Tibet, Africa, Myanmar ....) China loves to play the bully, but the only way to handle a bully is to stand up to them.

Hello Bob Lee, who was Jean Michel: shape shifter that your name is, you're the only person I've ever read or heard talk of "The CIA Bazooka Liar Lama". Maybe you'd better come up with another ludicrous line, especially since we in the West, as opposed to you in China, have frequent opportunities to hear and see His Holiness. He is in no way a "splittist", which Chinese students in America and I assume in Europe, are first incredulous, then confused to hear. He merely wants Tibet be genuinely autonomous with no destruction of Tibetans' culture and religion. Not to mention disappearances like that of the real Panchen Lama, imprisonments and outright killings. I believe you now no longer allow tourists into Tibet to avoid photos of exactly those ugly sights, hidden as most are.

The Dalai Lama is a terrorist and leads a band of terrorists just like Bin Laden. Like the Dalai Lama, Bin Laden also carried his terrorist activities in the name of his religion. Like the Dalai Lama, Bin Laden also promote suicide or self-immolation.

That your accusations of the People's Republic are so far from truths, makes me think that the Washington propaganda machine still "owns" your 99%, still can manipulate and fool them just like in the time when the ruling elites sold the Iraq War.

"China is intent on raping Myanmar (and so far doing a pretty good job of it) for its resources."

China is not the one trying to impose his will on Myanmar, telling her to bent over, to do this, not to do that. China is not the one intent on raping or invading.

We make love not wars.

China is not the only country doing business with Myanmar. China is not even the largest trading partner of Myanmar. Trading with and investing in Myanmar are for mutual benefits, and help Myanmar achieve fairly decent economic growth in the last decade.

"Against a predator nation like China, with its vast military and political resources, 2 simple people get together to meet and share experiences."

I doubt the lady can learn anything useful from the liar and loser. She is not an enemy of the People's Republic as he is.

It is very low of His Holiness to disclose the private meeting on Twitter. I would call it backstabbing.

"To object or criticise is to countenance the incredibly immature Chinese behavior we so often see (in Taiwan, Xinjiang, Tibet, Africa, Myanmar ....) China loves to play the bully, but the only way to handle a bully is to stand up to them."

You are living in a fantasy world, created by your oliarchy owned and controlled, fair and balanced, free and independent (of the 99%) mass media.

And a new documentary film will come out soon talking about Dalai Lama and CIA. CIA chef was received by Dalai Lama himself, was forma and correct. Said the chef. He added, Dalai Lama as a monk, he knew exactly who he is, a killer (?).

China is the one suffering from embarrassment - or should we say loss of face.

Let's be clear. China is intent on raping Myanmar (and so far doing a pretty good job of it) for its resources. China's invasion and occupation of Tibet show a similar callous selfishness.

Against a predator nation like China, with its vast military and political resources, 2 simple people get together to meet and share experiences.

How can that be anything but good?

To object or criticise is to countenance the incredibly immature Chinese behavior we so often see (in Taiwan, Xinjiang, Tibet, Africa, Myanmar ....) China loves to play the bully, but the only way to handle a bully is to stand up to them.]

No other people can be greater bully and rapist of other people and country around the world:

I applaud your editorial of 22 June, in which you exposed the insidious manner in which the Japanese parliament and government had glossed over the crimes and genocides the Japanese Imperial Army had committed against the peoples of East Asia.

Your effort is to be commended and I hope you will extend it and apply it in an impartial and unbiased manner.

The crimes of Japan during World War II is but one of the crimes against humanity in recent history and it is not even the most serious.

Far more sinister are those committed by the whites against the non-whites, with the racial genocides carried out in America and Australia being the most systematic and thorough.

These are the most hideous crimes against humanity- surpassing, in scale and thoroughness, even Hitler's organized pogrom of the Jews and the Slavs. But while the whites react with anger and indignation to the massacres of their own kind, they continue to glorify and celebrate their genocidal achievements when their victims are non-Europeans.

We all should now wake up to the fact that the regimes thus established are illegal, immoral and illegitimate. For the sake of justice and legality, these criminal regimes must be abolished. Only then can a just "New World Order" prevail.

The South China Morning Post, having so bravely exposed the lies and deceit of the Japanese, should now take up this new task with added courage and vigour, and thus set a moral journalistic standard for the rest of the "Free Press" to follow.

Dalai Lama - peaceful and serene despite all that has happened
Aung San Suu Kyi - peaceful and serene despite all that has happened
China ... still full of hate over what it can not control ... like a two year old.

Oh please the Dalai Lama is the best pragmatic poker player/propaganda artist in this entire scenario.

Think about it, the DL has two cards to play.

1. To support violence against the Chinese occupiers.

2. To support self-violence (self immolations) against the Tibetans.

By playing Card 1, the DL will incur a violent crackdown by the Chinese against the Tibetans, and will alienate Western support for his cause. This card is a lose-lose situation for the Tibetans.

By playing Card 2, he doesn't draw any Chinese backlash because the violence is against the Tibetans themselves. (It's young religious fanatical monks who are brainwashed into setting themselves on fire. Go ask any Western researcher who studies Tibet if you don't believe me.) He also obtains sympathy from the West by calling for this act of violence.

If the DL was really peaceful and serene then he would reject self-immolation, which is something that he refuses to do. The guy is just playing his cards correctly. If he had the ability to violently remove the Chinese occupiers then you bet your ass he would.

See when someone makes a point that you disagree with, all you can do is launch an ad hominem attack against them. You don't even try to discuss the issue whatsoever. It's ONLY a personal attack with you guys.

This is literally all you Lama lovers can do on this forum. How sad...

First of all, nobody in the West, with the exception of perhaps Tibetans who live in the West, considers the Dalai Lama His Holy anything. Buddhism is rarely practiced, and Western Buddhists do not worship the Dalai Lama.

The fact that you refer to the Dalai Lama as "His Holiness" and the fact that every single post of yours are on the Tibet issues suggests that you are not really "Western" but are actually "Tibetan." You may hold a Western passport, but your loyalties lies with Tibet.

Secondly, many of the Chinese posters here dislike the Dalai Lama and not the West. I guess only a Tibetan like yourself would try to transform negatively feelings for the Dalai Lama to ones for the West in order to try to feel less isolated?

That's an absurd assertion. In America alone there are literally tens of thousands of Buddhists born here and not asian. There are American and Western Buddhist teachers as well, and Tibetan Buddhist monasteries from NY to California to Canada. Sorry to tell you that most Tibetan Buddhists call the Dalai Lama His Holiness from respect for one of his names, Ocean of Wisdom. Wisdom not being something China seems to respect. The Yuan and "communist = repressive capitalism". A statue of Confuzu was put up then taken down. Was he was a Bazooka Wise Man who worked for the KGB for a change? I was born in Raleigh, NC, was in the civil rights movement in the South so have always had a sense of justice. You're the one obsessing about Buddhism and The Dalai lama. Westerners don't worship him. As he says he's neither a god or a king, much less a God King. In Buddhism there is no God. At this point I live in NYC and am mainly focusing on trying to get the NT Times to use the word racism in regard to stop and frisk. And your bio?

If you have a sense of justice, fight for the return of all the lands that have been stolen from the natives in the US. Then you can call yourself a true militant of justice. Otherwise, you are simply a hypocrite.

guest=islojm. I am indeed American, born and raised there. I have visited China and Tibet several times, I have lived in China, in Chengdu. I am a practicing Buddhist and have been a follower of His Holiness the Dalai Lama for many years. I know thousands of Americans who follow him as I do. We will never give up and we will NEVER stop using the words 'His Holiness the Dalai Lama'.

lol I have honestly never met someone non-Tibetan-origin who worships the Dalai Lama.

ok cool enjoy yourself.

But seriously, if you're just going to insult people and not offer any logical or factual conversation whatsoever, then get off of this website and go back to YouTube. The Economist is too good for your puny little ad-hominem-attacking brain.

The Americans love to talk about "democracy and freedom", the Chinese love to talk about "building a harmonious society", and the Dalai Lama loves to talk about "spirtual X Y and Z."

It's really all just blablablablabla.

If you examine most important decisions (USA invading Iraq, China invading Tibet, Dalai Lama supporting self immolations to gain sympathy from the West, and etc etc), it almost always comes down to money and power. It's really just the dumbass laymen such as yourself who buy into the propaganda.

I note that many of the Chinese supporters and those writing against His Holiness the Dalai Lama, write English very well. I presume that many are Chinese nationals but that they went to the West, the US perhaps, or England, or wherever to study and learn English.

These are the biggest hypocrites of all. They come to the West and enjoy its freedoms and liberties, take advantage of its great universities and lifestyle. Then, they return to China and support a dictatorial and oppressive government. They hate and despise the West even though the West gives them so much. These are the biggest hypocrites of all.

I've noticed that you hardly debate the issues. You do this ad hominem attack on posts that you don't agree with. If the points made are invalid, let's just debate them -- does it matter if the guy is blue or green, educated in Botswana or Dharamsala? Attacking the person posting the comments you don't agree with seems to me a rather Cultural Revolution sort of thing to do.

By the way I noticed that you wrote His Holiness this His Holiness that. Do you know that this title is a distinctly non-Tibetan thing? Traditionally Tibetans don't address the Dalai Lama, Panchen Lama, the Karmapa...etc as His Holiness. They are Rinpoches. Do you know who bestow this title to His Holiness? His Holiness himself! 'His Holiness' start using this title somewhere in the 80s or 90s. The reason is to make himself appeal to gullible Westerners like you.

That's a bit stupid. You can do better. No one said all westerners worship HH the DL, Tenzin Gyatso. Any more than Chinese worship the party whoever they be seems to a big secret. John the Good simply said you study here for hypocritical reasons and don't write about problems within your own culture. Are you forbidden to do so, even when it's in China's interest to do so? I get The China Daily free once in a while outside my door and it alway makes for humorous reading. GDP but nothing about human rights or dissidents. The Dalai Lama has tried to discourage self immolation. Now will you write about why Tibetans are self immolating? No. You're on a single track. Are you a Bot?

The truth is that the Dalai Lama has NOT tried to discourage self immolation. I have been following the Tibet-related events very closely ever since March 16, 2008 when the Dalai Lama categorically refused to stop the Tibet riots/protests that started on March 14. I am afraid you can not provide anything to back up your claim that he tried.

Just to avoid being called a Bot here it goes.

The self-immolators demand:

1. long life for the 14th Dalai Lama
2. the return of the Dalai Lama to Tibet
3. Tibet independence

Why did they choose this extreme form of protest? My personal view is that they were brainwashed by the Lamas and Rinpoches.

The Chinese supporters rarely, if ever, offer any facts to debate. It's always mean spirited lies, frankly. How exactly should the debate go in that case? I'll do it my way, you should continue to do it yours. :)

What's your obsession with the Dalai Lama, China guy? He's a thorn in your flesh because a good man who escaped you. So far. If you kill him you know you'll be in deep. A BBC show said all humans fixate on faces, and almost all love the Dalai Lama. Except where they're taught not to.

[John the 23rd, 15:26
I note that many of the Chinese supporters and those writing against His Holiness the Dalai Lama, write English very well. I presume that many are Chinese nationals but that they went to the West, the US perhaps, or England, or wherever to study and learn English.

These are the biggest hypocrites of all. They come to the West and enjoy its freedoms and liberties, take advantage of its great universities and lifestyle. Then, they return to China and support a dictatorial and oppressive government. They hate and despise the West even though the West gives them so much. These are the biggest hypocrites of all.]

You are correct. They have not only learnt English. They have also learnt that the West are the "the biggest hypocrites of all". That caused them to "hate and despise the West even though the West gives them so much" propaganda. Less well educated people would not be able to see through the propaganda and act correctly.

Before I went to the West as a student, I was taught to admire the west West. After spending more than a decade there and saw the insidious and hypocritical nature of the West and their propaganda, I have learnt to detest them all. ;-D, ;-D, ;-D...

Sir. It is sad that such a prestigious Magazine such as the Economist takes “China’s displeasure” or “happiness” more seriously than two individuals who have spent a large part of their lives hunted for their views which have only the interest of the oppressed in their respective countries and continue to do so despite all adversities with nearly no outside help. I wonder if you feel the same for the people who lost their lives (and continue to do so) during the uprising in Tibet as of recently? Is Economy the gold standard above life?

Monks often practice self immolation in an attempt to bring "light" to the terrible conditions they are subjected to by their perpetrators. Peaceful, compassionate monks or communist politicians or mitia gangs you take your pick as to what may be called a gold standard.

Monks often practice self immolation in an attempt to bring "light" to the terrible conditions they are subjected to by their perpetrators. Peaceful, compassionate monks or communist politicians or mitia gangs you take your pick as to what may be called a gold standard.

I think The Economist doesn't need to care about the displeasure of the China government, but Aung San, as a dissident-converted politician, has to be cautious.
The diplomatic tie between Norway and China has come to halt after they granted the Nobel Prize to Liu Xiao Bo. Burma's position and economical status would take them to suffer more.
As an admirer of both great Asian leaders in our world, I'm curious to see how Aung San balances her role as a real politicians and a dissident.

You think you know bhudhism more than I do though I am a bhudhist. Bhudhism does not preach self-BBQ. Or perhaps these monks are not bhudhists. If you are one of them who practices self-BBQ, why don't you torch yourself?

It is still a fact that Mao and the CCP killed 30 million Chinese citizens during the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution in the 20th century. China is no different than the West in this regard. Yes, it is very sad."

John, how did Mao kill 30 million Chinese? Did he use gas chambers, germs, bullets or what? Can you provide some academic sources? or just hear/say?

I do not think that John the Good will respond because he has no answer. He is one of those simple-minded, naive persons who thinks he has found the fountain of truth because he has listened to a couple of nonsense.

I know that he brilliantly had the idea of killing all the birds to save seed. But probably, like Stalin, he thought those weak with hunger could put up less resistance. it may be apocryphal but I've also heard he rode on a litter on the Long March. In Chapel Hill during the late fifties early sixties there was a great film society. Pre air conditioning the doors were left open and campus dogs would wander in, mostly to sleep and enjoy the company. In one Chinese communist film, only outdone in the boredom dept. by Soviet films starring tractors, someone screamed "Running dog Capitalist!" A dog started barking. I knew we need not fear Chinese Commies. Dogs were on our side. (Why did Nixon take that trip, I wonder at times?) I wanted to go to China, but they've destroyed all the beautiful old buildings. Nothing against the people. One thing that was definitely better in the old days was the Beijing Ballet. Ladies in uniform flying through the air clutching machine guns are much more interesting than flower ladies in that disturbing combo of pink and red.

according to a joint news report of a german public TV and a german newspaper, it discloses that dalai lama worked secretly with cia in the 60’s to train tibetan separatist rebels to subvert chinese tibet and all the while maintaining the appearance of being a peace monk.
it says no body said much about this out of deference to the halo of dalai's nobel peace award, until now....'

it's all a matter of public record. looks light someone just can't stand the truth being broadcast in recent german TV.

Actually it wasn't the Dalai Lama who worked for the CIA while they still supported freedom fighters in Tibet, before they switched courses and betrayed those Tibetans to their deaths. It was a wonderful Kalmuk mongol monk from Russia who lived in Tibet, China, England and came to the U.S. in the fifties. Richard Alpert of LSD fame who later became Ram Dass called him "The Buddha in New Jersey". One of his sayings was that Russians were not too bright but Chinese very tricky." I think of the latter half often.

Apparently, the propaganda of promoting the CIA Bazooka Liar Lama, which Washington has spent billions on, has failed to distract the Chinese from making critical progresses. The Chinese simply brush aside the propaganda since they know the truth of the silly monk from the time he was a vice chairman of Red China's People's Congress.

"During that same time, HHDL spent his time making millions and millions of friends around the world."

Only in millions? The number looks pale in comparison with tens of millions, if not hundreds of millions, that the Washington politicians have sold the Iraq War to.

All these reasons and discussions the Chinese supporters make here doom the future for China as an international player. They can lie, say bad things, call people names on the internet. But the reality is that Chinese politics, law, and civil society are not exportable.

No one wants these kinds of people and liars to live long in their countries. So, China only has power in China but on the internet and beyond its boarders, everyone sees China at a mean bully. Like they do to His Holiness the Dalai Lama, they will do to anyone who disagrees with them. Nobody really likes the Chinese.

Your opinion is shared by no one outside the western countries and even in the western countries only a small minority share your opinion and the number id declining very fast. You are simply a hypocrite.

That's right. I'm Mme Mao's reincarnation. Remember (during the glorious Cultural Revolution, which eliminated most of Chinese culture, including gorgeous old ceramics I studied in Art History grad school), when The People talked of the "Gang of Four" and lifted five fingers? Meaning Mao. Isn't something like that happening now in China? Or does your vocabulary only work defensively in sentences involving the Dalai Lama? Write home for advice or a replacement is my suggestion. Nothing personal. That's the problem, or one of them.